Please stop insisting ‘God told me’ - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

We would agree with the author that "God told me" is problematic, but not for the same reasons. We take issue because the statement is a conversation-ender. He takes issue with it because he's a cessationist and doesn't believe the gift of prophecy or any other sort of "supernatural" manifestation is available for the contemporary Christian. 

We think the prophetic spiritual gift is or should be in operation today, because we live in the "last days" (He. 1:2), where the Holy Spirit is poured out and our sons and daughters prophesy (Acts 2:17). As to how that should manifest we leave that discussion to church leadership. 

The bottom line here is that the author expects every revelation from God is Prophecy with a capital "P." And for unexplained reasons, every revelation must be confirmed by signs and wonders. We long for the author to make a biblical case for these astounding claims, but alas, the author manages to quote but a single ancillary Scripture. 

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss prophecy in some detail here and here.

----------------------

(,,,)

‘God told me’ is inevitably saved for times and places where the bible specifically hasn’t spoken. It may be the result of supposed ‘pomptings’, it could be the work of our own minds or, almost certainly in some cases, the product of the sinful desires of our hearts. Whichever it may be, ‘God told me’ is the hallmark of someone seeking a level of authority that is unwarranted on something they just wanted to do.

Now, don’t get me wrong, God’s spirit may well be prompting us to do something. (So the Holy Spirit does communicate to us? The author has just ceded his whole case.)

For example, I think it is rare that you are going to feel led to pray for someone apart from the Spirit prompting you to do so. But we generally know we are following the Spirit’s promptings when we are being prompted to do something that is expressly commanded or encouraged more explicitly in the Word. The reason I believe we are unlikely to be prompted to pray apart from the Spirit’s work is because the bible tells me that is part of what the Spirit does, I am aware that my heart doesn’t naturally tend towards prayer and God expressly says in his word that this is something we should do. Did God supernatually (sic) ‘tell me’ to pray for that person? Not exactly. I deduce that I was prompted by the Spirit (simply because that is what goes on when we pray) and my mind decided to do it in line with the Spirit-led affection of my heart. There was no voice or vision saying ‘pray for Bob!’ (This seems like a distinction without a difference. In both instances there is divine communication. So the author does believe God speaks, it's just a matter of how?)

But this is clearly different to somebody asserting, ‘God has told me to marry this person’ or ‘God has told me I must get this job’. (So God does speak, depending on the type of message?)

The truth is, he has done no such thing. Might God be prompting you? Maybe. But how can you judge that with any degree of certainty when nothing in his word says this must be so? How do you know it isn’t just an idea you dreamt up off the top of your head? How do you know this isn’t some sinful desire that you have convinced yourself is good? (The author appears to be unacquainted with how prophecy is judged:

• Harmony with Scripture
• The discernment of the brethren
• Other witnesses 
• The Holy Spirit)

After all, the heart is deceitful above all things. (The unsaved heart is certainly deceitful. But didn't the author get saved and become a New Man [2Co. 5:17]? If so, then his heart is now a heart of flesh instead of stone [Ez. 11:19] and therefore is no longer deceitful. But his fleshly nature certainly is [Ep. 4:22]. That is the part of us we are commanded to put to death [Col. 3:5].)

If you can’t say it is God’s Spirit prompting you with any certainty, how much less do you have the right to say ‘God told me’? (True. However, certainty isn't possible.)

Even if you are utterly convinced that God is prompting you, (The author just admitted, I deduce that I was prompted by the Spirit... So are promptings permitted or not?)

leaving aside the rightness or wrongness of that assumption, you don’t necessarily know why. (A matter of discernment, and certainly not an argument against promptings.)

It isn’t unheard of for God to move his people to do things that (from our perspective) appear to turn to abject failure. So often ‘God told me’ is wheeled out as if to say this has God’s seal of approval on it so you must get on board with what I am saying or else you are defying the living God. (Is it just a matter of semantics, then?)

But why presume that when, in fact, God might be prompting you to do something in order to teach you a particular lesson; one that may not line up with your particular desire. Maybe the Lord is addressing your sin or maybe the Lord is leading you to do something that will address a part of your character or perhaps the Lord is leading you to one thing so that the consequences of it might be to your good in an altogether different way. Even if we are convinced God is prompting us, not only has he not specifically ‘told me’, why would we presume to know what outcome he intends from it? (So, are promptings permitted or not?)

But these things only really address our internal sense of whatever is being said. None of them really get to the heart of the issue. In scripture, those who were bringing God’s word were consistently attested by God in verifiable ways. There is a reason Nicodemus could say to Jesus, ‘we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one could perform these signs you do unless God were with him’ (John 3:2). (A Scripture, finally! The only one, and only to prove an ancillary point.)

Consistently, those sent by God with God’s word were attested with God’s signs. (Is the author suggesting that signs and wonders must accompany promptings in order to be regarded as legitimate? Where might we find this idea in the Bible?)

This is true in both the Old Testament and the New. It was true for Old Testament prophets, (Yes, sometimes.)

for the Christ to whom they pointed (Yes, most certainly, as the author just demonstrated.)

and for the Apostles who were sent after him. (No, not at all. There is not Scripture that tells us this.)

That is why Paul insists, when his Apostleship is being questioned, ‘I performed the signs of an Apostle among you’ (2 Cor 12:12). (Let's quote:

2Co. 12:12 The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles — were done among you with great perseverance.

Aside from the fact that the author incorrectly paraphrased the verse, we will discover that Paul was in the middle of a defense of the quality of his apostleship, which he started back in chapter 10. The Corinthians thought he was a substandard apostle, an issue that actually goes all the way back to his first letter, where some of them wanted Peter or Apollos to be their apostle [1Co. 1:12]. 

Paul wasn't telling the Corinthian church how to know an apostle is real, he was claiming to be just as good an apostle as the "super apostles" [2Co. 12:11]. So when he wrote verse 12, he wasn't describing apostolic qualifications, he was pointing out that he did miracles and signs just as the "super-apostles" did.

To return to the original premise, that signs and wonders attest to God's prophetic word, this is a different matter entirely from attesting to a prophet or an apostle. In actual fact, signs and wonders attest to the gospel message, not the messenger:

He. 2:3-4 ...This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

So the real question is, if the gospel was attested to by the miraculous, why shouldn't that be the case today? Explain, sir. From the Bible, please.)

This is only reasonable because what reason should anybody have to listen to somebody claiming God’s authority? Prove you are bringing God’s word is a perfectly legitimate thing to demand! And God consistently attested such people through signs. (Then why should we accept the message preached every Sunday without signs and wonders? Explain, please. From the Bible.)

So, what of those who insist ‘God told me’ today? It is perfectly legitimate to ask: and why should we believe that? What evidence have you got that God told you? How are you distinguishing between your own thoughts and God speaking? What evidence have you got, that can be verified by anybody else, that you are speaking authoritatively or that God has said something specific to you? If there is none, not only are we justified in disbelieving that God said anything to you, we would be absolutely insane to think he has! Why on earth would you reasonably expect anybody to believe you apart from some solid evidence, such as a miraculous sign, (The author seems to want to persist in conflating manifestations of the prophetic gift with the signs and wonders accompanying the first century gospel attestation.)

that you are saying anything beyond thoughts from your own head that you are trying to embue (sic) with a level of authority that they do not warrant?

This matters for a few reason. (sic) (Actually, he provides just three. The first one is a repeat, and the third is a variation of the first. Only the second reason is a distinct new reason.)

First, ‘God told me’ is really sinfully manipulative. (The author has already made this point.)

God never speaks and just expects people to believe it. God attests to his people so that we are not left in any doubt that this person speaks authoritively (sic) in his name. To assert that ‘God told me’ is usually just a power play to try and twist people’s arms into doing whatever it is that we think must be done. If I claim ‘God told me’ and you stand in my way, you are standing against the Almghty. Otherwise, it is a means of innoculating (sic) ourselves against criticism for whatever it is we are doing. After all, if ‘God told me’ you can’t criticise or question me. But apart from an attesting sign from God, this is little more than sinful manipulation. It is claiming God’s authority on something that he has not said in order to force people into doing what you want or not criticising you, even if that criticism might be entirely justified.

Second, it impacts biblical credibility. (He never actually tells us why.)

We absolutely believe the bible because it is God’s word. We have evidence that scripture is God’s word and believe God attested those who wrote it verifiably. Scripture itself repeatedly attests to God’s prophets being recognised as such through means that could be verified externally and properly. (!! What?? Where do we find this attestation of prophets in the NT? Perhaps it's found in the OT, but the author cannot be troubled to provide the Bible referencelet alone quote the Bible.) 

They were not just blokes who claimed to speak in God’s name and a nation of dolts just accepted it because they said so. The bible is quite clear on this point over and over again. (Where in the Bible? Please, tell us!!)

They were attested as prophets by God, Jesus was attested as God’s final prophet and the Apostles were attested as Jesus’ appointed spokemen. (sic) (Where in the Bible? Where? tell us where to find this information, since you are supposed to be a teacher of the Word!)

Reject the evidence if you will, but the bible at least claims there is some evidence for accepting them to speak authoritatively. (It must be a secret where the Bible tells us this evidence.

Further, the author uses this word "authoritatively" or its variants nearly a dozen times without ever explaining it. We suspect his bungled point is that "authoritative" means that God's words are conveyed by a prophet without error and are at the level of Scripture. 

The Bible is authoritative, therefore prophecy must also be authoritative. This is because God speaking must in prophecy means all prophecy must be included in the Bible. It is deemed authoritative. But... The canon is closed so it can't be included. Thus it must be false. 

This is the reasoning that goes into the idea that prophecy must be authoritative. But there is no verse in the Bible that communicates this idea. Particularly, the gift of prophecy lacks this biblical standard. NT prophecy is weighed [1Co. 14:29], controlled [1Co. 14:32], confirmed [2Co. 13:1], and discerned [1Co. 12:10]. There is no Bible verse that requires or even mentions attestation by signs and wonders.)

That entire biblical claim is undermined everytime a Christian asserts ‘God told me’ without any such verifiable evidence.

Third, it is pastorally problematic. If ‘God told me’ is justifiable, then you are placing yourself above criticism. (This is pretty much a variation of reason one.)

How many people have tried to evade church discipline because ‘God told me’ it was fine? How many churches have been led astray because someone asserted ‘God told me’ and everyone must be bound by it? How many people have sinfully inserted themselves into other people’s business on the spurious grounds that ‘God told me’? How many rumours and bits of gossip have been passed around and justified as ‘God told me’? And if we accept God did tell you, then who are we to discipline you for it or stand up and insist this is sin? ‘God told me’ becomes the magic words to utter to avoid any sort of scrutiny, discipline or criticism. It is both manipulative and dangerous. It places us in a dangerous position of being beyond criticism and stops anyone being able to say ‘I don’t think God said this; I think your sinful heart did!’

We really need to expunge this phrase from our vocabulary. (Agreed.)

If God told you, then he has told all of us in his word. If God hasn’t told us in his word, unless you’ve got a miracle to back yourself up, nobody can have any confidence (least of all yourself) that God told you anything at all. (We are still waiting for the biblical explanation of where the gift of prophecy, whether it be audible words, promptings, or just vague feelings, must be accompanied by signs and wonders to be affirmed as true.)

If it is just something we really want to do or we think is a good idea, we should be content to own that and point to whatever biblical principles have informed that position. If it is something we think needs saying to another person because of some error or sin on their part, it isn’t unreasonable for them to expect more than your unattested, unverifiable ‘God told me’ before they feel harshly judged. The overt and clear words of scripture are safer and stronger ground. If we just feel led to do something – we are convinced we are being prompted – we shouldn’t presume to place God’s authority on it. Rather, we should simply affirm it is something we feel led to do, we think is legitimate and let the Lord do his thing such as he wants to without presuming to place his authority on it. After all, if it is of the Lord, whatever he wants will come to pass and if it isn’t why put yourself in the position of making yourself look foolish by claiming to have his authority when it becomes evident later on that it didn’t?